Karaoke Forums

Yep, as long as I am not the actually making it for distribution, the legalities do not fall on the kj using it - again provided the club the songs are bing played pay their fees. End of story! This I HAVE checked out thoroughly through the years.

_________________
LIKE Lonman on Facebook - Lonman Productions Karaoke & my main site via my profile!

It's all one big gray area. First of all, your cover band analogy is all wrong. You can make as many cover songs as you want whenever you want, mass produced or not, providing you pay the statutory royalty (I think about 13 cents per track per copy).

As I understand it, the killer for karaoke all along has been "sync rights", which used to be limited to producing audiovisual productions (like a movie) with the song in them. Those don't have a statutory royalty, you have to buy them individually. In addition, who do you buy the rights from? Often it wouldn't the original artist, because they don't own the music.

In the US, the artists have tried to enforce sync rights on karaoke. In Britain, it has been decided they don't apply there. Which is why so many companies are producing overseas -- they don't have to get sync rights and just have to pay a statutory royalty.

_________________
[color=#ffff55]Mickey J.[/color]
Alas for those who never sing, but die with all their music in them.
-- Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr.

Thanks, Eric.
But don't worry. I've often found that those with thick coconuts tend to accuse others of having thick coconuts themselves, just because they don't get it. Much easier to point the finger the other way than to admit you don't understand. Wouldn't be the first time. I'm sure it won't be the last.

Actually, they are NOT "creating the music on the spot". They are publishing it. Big difference, legally speaking.
It's the same with Lonman and his analogy is, in fact, very apt to question at hand.
As for your stolen car analogy, do you think that they would press charges against someone who bought the said vehicle in "good faith"?
I would think not!
Lonman is correct. He is legally absolved of any issues regarding discs that were produced by companies who didn't pay their royalties.
Seriously, if it was THAT big a deal to the copyright holders, don't you think they would sue? But, as in the case of the SC8125 disc, as far as I know, they didn't. They just pulled it from the market. Lonman would probably know more of the details of that particular case than I do.
A good example would be Panorama. They didn't pay, were sued and now they are out of business due to it. The award to the copyright holders was more than Panorama was willing/able to pay, so they folded. But that doesn't mean that any discs I have are now "illegal" to play. They actually got their legal judgement. Whether they are able to collect is none of my concern. Any other copyright holder is equally able to go to court and enforce payment. Not my issue if they don't. I buy my discs legitimately. What you suggest by implication would be akin to me having to check with each and every artist to check if ANY discs (even regular CDS) have had their fees paid. When we purchase a regular CD, we take it in good faith that all fees have been paid. The same applies to CDG's. We, the consumers, are not the copyright police, nor should it be on our shoulders to be. Thelaw is very specific. Copyright holders are free to enforce their copyright or not, as they see fit.
The fact that they choose not to does not affect my "good faith" purchase.

I would have thought the term that applied to a cover band playing music would be performing, not publishing.

And, as copyright holders have exclusive rights to the public performance of their works, then cover bands do, in fact have to have permission or be covered by some form of licence to perform those works in public. Most of the time, this permission is by way of the licence a bar obtains for having live music in their business.

I'm not talking about MAKING the music for distribution, i'm talking about playing it in a venue. In which the band analogy stands - a cover band is not making music for distribution, they are playing it in a club. If a manu makes a disc without aquiring proper licenses for distribution, then they are legally on the hook. If I buy that pressed disc through a legitimate store for play in the club, the only thing I need to make sure is the club is paying the publishing fees via ASCAP and the likes.


Most likely why Sound Choice moved their production facility overseas as well.

_________________
LIKE Lonman on Facebook - Lonman Productions Karaoke & my main site via my profile!

I still think that is a gray area. There hasn't been any pressed disk / burned disk / downloaded file or even format-shifting case law, either. What is legal and what isn't wouldn't be very easy to ascertain.

What I agree with is that you are unlikely to run into any trouble as long as you pay ASCAP/BMI. I have yet to hear a credible first-hand account of any search and inventory of a collection.

But if you really dug into the posts we have made on this board, it would be clear that the most savvy of us understand that if you buy a Dangerous or SGB disk on EBay or anywhere it is likely to be illegal. Same goes with a Music Maestro or Top Tunes. Pressed or not, Buying one there would not be much of a defense.


Yup. Since they are selling and shipping into the US, I am guessing that is a gray area too. But at least they are preventing any wild-eyed publishing agencies from conducting a raid on their facility.

It still sort of honks me off that a computer-hater can post a stupid and barely on-point story and get this topic all stirred up again. Enough already, until something real happens.

_________________
[color=#ffff55]Mickey J.[/color]
Alas for those who never sing, but die with all their music in them.
-- Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr.

Cover bands do not have to obtain any special license to play anothers work in a club - if they were recording their rendition, then yes they would need to obtain the licensing to record/distribute.
The club the music is played must pay to cover the performance - which is basically a blanket license that gets paid to the ASCAP & the likes.

_________________
LIKE Lonman on Facebook - Lonman Productions Karaoke & my main site via my profile!

In its broadest sense, the term publishing describes the act of making something known to the general public. A publication can be accomplished by speaking in a public place, printing information on paper and distributing it on the street, buying or otherwise securing time on television, placing information in a circulated newspaper or magazine, or other similar methods.
So yes, I meant exactly what I said, PUBLISHING.
Performing is only one way of publishing, albiet a very specific form.


That is exactly right. Bars generally pay the ASCAP/BMI fees (in Canada it's SOCAN).

Uh oh, can we then foresee cases of music publishers suing cover bands for plagiarism?

At the end of the day, we could be having this argument for every DJ (not to mention KJ) who downloads an MP3...or people at their home pc who have downloaded THEN shared that track with their friends...or, do you remember (if your as old as me ) sitting next to the TV with your Tape Recorder waiting for that song to come on......Its ALL piracy and always HAS gone on..and always will.

If the bands are playing the music as a cover band or tribute band there is no plagerism as they are not claiming the works as their own. They are just playing the music in a club, in which the club pays for the music played.

_________________
LIKE Lonman on Facebook - Lonman Productions Karaoke & my main site via my profile!

Okay, you guys crack me up! It seems that there is an intermingling of the 2 different kinds of licensing that's going on here:

#1. ASCAP licensing: This is a license for the CLUB only. ASCAP doesn't care where the music came from, just that it is being performed and therefore they have different licensing fees based on the source of the "performance" like KJ's, DJ's, Bands, Televisions that are on with audio, Radio, etc...

It basically doesn't matter if you're singing ASCAP songs bangin' on glass and tap dancing it's the fact that they are "being performed at the venue" that pays a licensing fee.

--------------------------------------
#2: Licensing for the production of karaoke discs is quite more complex. There are a number of different licenses that must be obtained in the USA and SOME are negotiated and some are not.
(a) You can pay the copyright office for a "COMPULSORY LICENSE" if you can't seem to locate and pay the owner of the music for a song. This is the tact that most karaoke manufacturers take since it is a simple one-time $15.00 fee paid directly to the copyright office. Example: Rolling Stones music is controlled by ABKO who will flat out sue anyone who uses it illegally. If you look carefully at the Sound Choice end screen, it will say "Used by permission" and that the song was licensed or credited to "EMI Music".... Who actually DID handle them..... TWENTY YEARS AGO. So all you have to do is send a letter to EMI and ask them if you can use the song... and make sure you mail to their "old address" so that it gets returned. File it away and get your $15 compulsory, sell lots of discs and act dumb and ignore any other licensing issues... like;

(b) MECHANICAL license is a negotiated license that you'd pay the owner/publisher/controller of the music to actually press your discs. Some of these licenses are determined by a specific number of discs, or a time limit.

(c) SYNCHRONIZATION license is ONLY a negotiated license that allows a manufacturer to "synchronize the music in time with the video" that accompanys the audio... and last but not least....

(d) LYRIC REPRINT license is also ONLY a negotiated license that allows the manufacturer to reprint the lyrics to the song... that get "synchronized" above. The famous Sound Choice "RBTL" eagles disc contained the audio (compulsory license) but did not contain any lyrics or synchronization.

----------------------------------------------------
A failure to properly license item (c) and (d) constitute copyright infringement. If you don't display the lyrics or video and you have your compulsory in place, you're safe.
----------------------------------------------------


Getting back to my point:

A vast majority of the tracks that most KJ's use are/have been produced WITHOUT getting the proper licensing.... EVEN THOUGH the KJ purchased it at a "legitimate outlet."

So let's translate this in to layman's terms:

A vast majority of the tracks that most KJ's use are/have been PIRATED by manufacturers... AND DISTRIBUTED AND SOLD through "legitimate outlets and stores."

These same manufacturers now want to enforce "their copyright protection" for these same tracks they produced illegally in the first place?

It's easy to bury your head in the sand and say; "I'm legal, I bought it at a store." and absolve yourself but my point is that you're using pirated material, you're supporting pirates when you purchase this stuff, BECAUSE: for all intents and purposes, these tracks should have never been produced in the first place. They wouldn't have been at "the store" for you to purchase.

It's a fact of life in this business.... and it's a multi-level pirated operation.

I am not responsible for licenses from producers or artists to produce cdg's nor can I be held responsible for such fees. I cannot copy and distribute cdg's produced by karaoke manus or downloads if they are copyrighted by the karaoke manus. Financial loss then can be proven. Backup or shifting to a digital format on a one to one basis has yet to be determined in a court of law. With the world situation as it is right now this matter is on a back burner so far back and has a priority of a minus trillion.

_________________
Join The Karaokle Singers Social Network. Upload Your Music!!

the concept of having to check your legally purchased discs for legitimacy is in my humble opinion... moronic.

Do you do that with your TV?
Do you do that with your car?
Do you do that with your regular CDs?
Do you do that with any commercial purchase?

I bought my cdgs from CDG retailers. Only a few were burns, they were ALL pressed discs.

This is what I'll tell the karaoke kops if they ever show up on my door.

C Staley

I completely agree with your rhetorical questions and the finer legal points you made regarding pirating. You actually defined quite succinctly questions that have been troubling me.

Clearly, as you implied, there are situations throughout the industry where the "kettles are calling the pots black"! And I will add that I don't understand the rationale behind statements made by some members who declare in the context fo these discussions that what is happening reflects a level of "greed" on the part of the artists and/or publishers. I see nothing wrong in anyone trying to get as much money as they can for their artistic efforts.

Strictly speaking, C Staley, you have suggested that we all have some illegal tracks, whether we work strictly with discs or we order tracks online. Not strictly speaking, I doubt that many of us are intentionally supporting pirates, yet many of the people who speak out most stridently against pirating have indicated that they have "done their duty" by purchasing what they believe to be legitimate tracks.

While ignorance is not a defense in the eyes of the law, and those who purchase stolen merchandise cannot perfect title for said goods, I am not sure what you may want KJ's to do? I would like to hear what is actually and exactly on your mind in this regard!

Eric, that's it in a nutshell. There's not much that CAN be done. Speaking in terms of discs only:

1) Most are marked with copywrite info on the label, but many aren't. Yet those marked may well be as unlicensed as some that may not be, and vice-versa.

Example: SC8438 - A TV theme disc. A paragraph of copywrite info on the label, yet eventually pulled for lack of licensing.

There is no master list of what is or isn't licensed out there, so there is really no way of knowing the status of what you own.

Speaking for myself, I'm not about to start throwing away thousands of dollars worth of discs on a GUESS.

On the other hand, while ignorance is not a defense in a court of law, intent is. If one shows they bought their discs in good faith, ( properly labeled mfr. discs, receipts, etc...) then an intent to defraud cannot be proven - and we are still innocent until PROVEN guilty.
This moves the onus of responsibility to your supplier, or to the mfr.


That's discs. If one uses downloaded ( not ripped and in ownership of the original disc) MP3 tracks, it's a heckuva lot harder to show non-complicity. While disc labels may show original mfr. and copywrite info, downloads do not. An e-mailed receipt of funds from an online site won't amount to much. No licensing info is included per track.

On top of that, media shifting is still a gray area.

I'm not saying disc based hosts are immune to hassle, but those whose drives are filled with downloaded tracks for which they don't own the original discs would be in for a MUCH rougher legal ride, and even media shifters in ownership of discs may well run into trouble.

_________________
"No Contests, No Divas, Just A Good Time!"

" Disc based and loving it..."

If you own an original disc - regardless of which manu made it without obtaining proper licesning, it will not fall on the KJ that plays it. There is a big difference in creating for distribution - the manus, & playing in a club that pays (supposed to anyway) the publishing fees. The KJ is not lible for a disc that was produced without proper licensing - unless of course it is obviously a home made disc.

_________________
LIKE Lonman on Facebook - Lonman Productions Karaoke & my main site via my profile!

Do you have Proof of that? Many times the licensing is changed AFTER the fact. There were only a few SC discs made without proper licensing and that was discovered after they made and produced the discs. THey applied, and usually were not denied (speaking of the infamous SC8125)

But there have been tons of discs that were produced legally, only to have the owner of the license change their mind.

Absolutely true, Knight, yet WHEN the licensing may have been changed makes no difference in this case. Suppose You bought a licensed disc only to the change or pull happen later. There is still no notification sent out like a recall to Karaoke Hosts OR their suppliers.

STILL no way of knowing what's licensed or not. Even if there were, no mfr. is offering rebates for such discs.

As Lon and I said, if one owns an original mfrs. disc, at this time tho onus is on the venue and mfr.

I HAVE SC8438 AND SC8125, and will continue to use them. No reason not to.

_________________
"No Contests, No Divas, Just A Good Time!"

" Disc based and loving it..."